NY Mag: "When Did Liberals Become So Unreasonable?"

There are any number of arguments about things Obama did wrong. Some of them are completely misplaced, like blaming Obama for compromises that senators forced him to make. Many of them demand Obama do something he can’t do, like Maddow’s urging the administration to pass an energy bill through a special process called budget reconciliation—a great-sounding idea except for the fact that it’s against the rules of the Senate. Others castigate Obama for doing something he did not actually do at all (i.e., Drew Westen’s attention-grabbing, anguished New York Times essay assailing Obama for signing a budget deal with cuts to Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid that were not actually in the budget in question).

...

Some of the complaints are right, and despite being an Obama apologist, I’ve made quite a few of them myself. (The debt-ceiling hostage negotiations drove me to distraction.) But I don’t think any of the complaints—right, wrong, or otherwise—really explain why liberals are so depressed.

Here is my explanation: Liberals are dissatisfied with Obama because liberals, on the whole, are incapable of feeling satisfied with a Democratic president. They can be happy with the idea of a Democratic president—indeed, dancing-in-the-streets delirious—but not with the real thing. The various theories of disconsolate liberals all suffer from a failure to compare Obama with any plausible baseline. Instead they compare Obama with an imaginary president—either an imaginary Obama or a fantasy version of a past president.

So, what if we compare Obama with a real alternative? Not to Republicans—that’s too easy—but to Democratic presidents as they lived and breathed?

http://nymag.com/news/politics/liberals-jonathan-chait-2011-11/

Something everyone should read, and learn to understand why the knee-jerk reactions on the left--fed by Republican propaganda and our own versions of Fox News--are doing considerable damage to the liberal cause.

n/t

consistently. Is that unreasonable?

LoZoccolo posts the results every week.

The purity test brigade, basically, those determined to demand the moon, the stars, and the galaxy, and consider anything less a cop out, "cave," or half-measure. A group which is disproportionately represented in "left wing" media, I should note. It also makes an easy way for the right to propagandize some liberals into not voting.

It's a mistake, but it's one they keep making. There's a great article that was posted here a couple of months back, and it was something to the effect of "The Narrators are Much Angrier Than Their Audience" (or something like that). It spoke to the fact that the "paid" left which includes highly paid teevee personalities, "journalists", columnists, bloggers, and other liberal elitist purist types get all the attention. Thus, the M$M think they speak for all of us, at least that's what they like to pretend.

They would identify as either some third party, independent, or a non-voter.

-- The Tragically Hip

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=819680&mesg_id=819680

Having said that, this article is the flip side to David Frum's article, "When Did the GOP Lose Touch With Reality?", in the same publication, found here: http://nymag.com/news/politics/conservatives-david-frum-2011-11/

Both are interesting to read.

Seems I'm in line with the 80% who approve of him this week... yet I'm being told how disgruntled I am. Curious.

Chait is descrbing the feelings of some liberals.
Unfortunately, I do not see very many elected officials who are liberal/leftist enough. Perhaps, they never get on the ballot as the party selection process eliminates them as unelectable. Perhaps, they never try to get elected. Whatever the reason, peope who are 'liberal enough' are not in Congress.
So, I expect some of the 'left' ( The USA does not really have a left) to be disappointed. The 111th Congress did not pass far reaching reform.

I think you're mistaking "I don't like the conclusions" for "dumb."

It is dumb because it is so speculative. Who can take seriously sweeping generalizations about why liberals are so disappointed by Obama:

"Here is my explanation: Liberals are dissatisfied with Obama because liberals, on the whole, are incapable of feeling satisfied with a Democratic president. They can be happy with the idea of a Democratic president—indeed, dancing-in-the-streets delirious—but not with the real thing. The various theories of disconsolate liberals all suffer from a failure to compare Obama with any plausible baseline. Instead they compare Obama with an imaginary president—either an imaginary Obama or a fantasy version of a past president."

That sort of crap is so silly. Pop sociology at its worst.

I hear and see DAILY, mainly by posters on DU, things that are just false.

I would suggest that the moderator opinion at the bottom change from "liberal" cause to "progressive cause". Liberals are a faction of the left. They do not own it wholly. "Liberals", as demonstrated at least on DU, bears the characteristic of being very emotional in a response to anything.

:crazy:

NGU.

NGU.

:thumbsup:

Just look at the OWS movement there are so many points of view that nothing gets done but everyone gets heard.